The
international community recently witnessed a rare and momentous
occasion: the birth of a new nation-state. East Timor has been at the
forefront of international news coverage the past few years, as the
struggle for independence escalated in a violent crescendo of attack
and counter-attack by pro-independence and pro-integration militias.
All
due sympathy goes to the victims of these horrific attacks. Attacks,
one feels compelled to add, that were motivated by nationalistic
rather than religious fervor, as pointed out by one Muslim website.(1)
This was a fact overlooked by the vast majority of Christian websites,
who took great pains to portray the issue as one of Islamic
persecution, while failing to report on the intimidation and abuse of
Muslim citizens at the hands of East Timorese Christians.(2) In fact,
the claim is somewhat ironic, given the fact that the Muslims of Aceh
are currently struggling for independence and have also suffered
terrible human rights abuses at the hands of the Indonesian military.(3) Little attention is paid to their plight.
It
is important to note that the differences in this case were primarily
political, as the overwhelmingly Christian East Timorese came to
associate Muslim citizens and migrants with the Indonesian occupiers,
subjecting them to much physical and verbal abuse. Further evidence of
political motivation is the fact that Protestants and ethnic Chinese
businessmen were also targeted during the violence, as were any other
groups perceived to be opposed to independence.(4)
In
the midst of the celebrations, a number of issues are inevitably
raised on such an occasion in the Muslim and Arab mind, many of them
specific to the case at hand.
At
the heart of the East Timorese struggle for independence is the
internationally recognized legal tenet of self-determination, a
principle enshrined in the United Nations charter that has acquired
the status of a non-derogable norm of international law, or jus cogens.
Similarly crucial is the issue of the illegitimacy of the Indonesian
occupation of East Timor.
That
Indonesia invaded and militarily occupied the territory in question
shortly after the departure of the Portuguese in December of 1975 is
attested to by a voluminous body of evidence and is not subject to
debate. In itself, this fact is not the crux of the matter; rather it
is of note because of the host of issues and questions that arise
pertaining to events consequent to and immediately preceding the
invasion.
It
is in light of current events that the role of the United States in
the Indonesian invasion is particularly interesting.
There
was no possible legal justification for the Indonesian invasion of
East Timor. The illegitimacy of the invasion, however, did not stop
the U.S. from covertly supporting and acknowledging the Indonesian
occupation. This can perhaps explain the impotence of the Security
Council, which, although issuing two resolutions calling for an
immediate withdrawal of Indonesian forces, failed to take the
necessary measures to ensure such a withdrawal.(5) Patrick Moynihan,
then U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, boasted of his success in
crippling UN efforts to force an Indonesian withdrawal.(6) Philip
Habbib, under secretary of state for political affairs, in a meeting
with Kissinger, referred to the occupation saying “Let them go ahead
and do what they’re doing. We have no objection. We’ve not
objected in UN Security Council debates. They [the Indonesians]’re
quite happy with the position we’ve taken. We’ve resumed, as you
know, all our normal relations with them; and there isn’t any
problem involved.”(7)
The
U.S.’ refusal to intervene or take a stance on the invasion can be
explained as follows: It has been revealed, under the auspices of the
Freedom of Information Act,(8) that the United States, in a meeting
with President Suharto, gave Indonesia the green light for an invasion
of East Timor in 1975.(9) In fact, the primary concern of then
President Ford and Secretary of State Kissinger was the usage of
American weapons, lest that cause embarrassment to the U.S. due to the
inevitable “technical and legal problems,” as Ford put it (Kissinger
suggested that perhaps the invasion could be construed as
“self-defense”). Both Kissinger and Ford expressed their
understanding of Suharto’s decision to invade East Timor. Asked
about the inevitable guerrilla war that would surely follow, Suharto
dismissed it lightly, stating that such resistance would be
“small.”
One
cannot even afford the United States the luxury of assuming they had
no conception of the butchery that would result from the Indonesian
invasion. Six months later, when the occupation was in full swing,
Kissinger referred to continuing U.S. support of and aid to Indonesia,
describing it as “illegally and beautifully.”(10)
This
is a heartening indicator of the moral fortitude of the diplomats and
politicians in the balance of whose decisions countless lives hang.
Indeed, many thousands of East Timorese died as a result of the
Indonesian army’s rampage, and therefore, indirectly, as a result of
U.S. foreign policy.
This
in itself should not be surprising to a readership long inured to the
duplicity and machinations of the U.S. administration. It is
important, therefore, in the context of the ongoing Palestinian war of
independence, to understand the U.S.’ willingness to support
aggression and the illegal use of force where it believes its
interests are being served.
Much
of the discourse and discussion on Palestine is largely useless,
because it is predicated on the erroneous assumption that the United
States is motivated by some conception of justice, regardless how
vague, or by a basic respect for human rights. One would hope that the
case of East Timor serves as adequate evidence of the U.S.’
historical disdain for human rights, while Palestine, naturally,
speaks volumes on U.S. complicity in ongoing atrocities.
Of
vital importance to the question is the United Nations reaffirmation
of the East Timorese right to self-determination. It was arguably on
the basis of this principle that the United Nations Transitional
Authority in East Timor (UNTAET) was formed, to pave the way for the
eventual independence of East Timor.
Self-determination
is recognized as a fundamental guiding principle for relations among
nations in the first article of the UN Charter, thereby acknowledging
that it is a right of all peoples. It was reaffirmed as an inalienable
right of the Palestinian people in General Assembly resolution A/RES/3236
(XXIX) of November 22, 1974.(11) The resolution in question was passed
almost a year before the Invasion of East Timor, and twenty-six years
after the United Nations oversaw “the birth” of another state -
Israel. Twenty-eight years later, on the 19th of May 2002, UN
Secretary-General Koffi Annan marked the independence of East Timor,
noting “I salute you — people of East Timor — for the courage
and perseverance you have shown… Yours has not been an easy path to
independence. You should be very proud of your achievement.”
Twenty-eight years later, today, there is no Palestinian state. The
“inalienable” right of the people of Palestine to
self-determination has yet to be respected. To this day, 3.8 million
registered Palestinian refugees still remain homeless and stateless.(12) But one is glad to note that the 260,000 East Timorese
made refugees by the Indonesian invasion now have a country to return
to.(13)
If
there is a lesson to be learned from the experiences of East Timor, it
is that international law is nothing without the political will to
enforce it. International law has often sided with just causes, not
the least of which is Palestine. Alternatively, international law has
often been used to our detriment, with no better example then the
partitioning of Palestine and consequent affirmations of the
territorial sovereignty and independence of the state of Israel.
In
both the case of Palestine and East Timor, the United States played a
role in supporting a military power that perpetrated atrocities
against civilians as a matter of policy. Essentially, both were
victims of U.S. policy. In the case of East Timor, the United States
eventually stood down (possibly temporarily) from its unspoken
commitments to arm and diplomatically support a state guilty of
aggression. Realistically speaking, that cannot and will not happen in
the case of Israel. And that is why we must rid ourselves of the
misconception that the United States is a mediator in the conflict
and, more importantly, that the United States is a “strategic
ally.”
The
author encourages your comments. Please e-mail him at azizuddin@islam-online.net
1-
“Paradox of the west's attitude on East Timor”
2-
“East
Timor's Muslims Bemoan New Hostility”
3-
Human Rights Watch: “Indonesia:
The War in Aceh”
4-
Human Rights Watch, World Report 2001 “East
Timor: Human Rights Development”
5-
East Timor – UNTAET:
United Nations Documents
6-
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting: “ACTION
ALERT: U.S. ROLE MISSING FROM EAST TIMOR COVERAGE”
7-
National Security Archive: “East Timor Revisited: Ford, Kissinger
and the Indonesian Invasion, 1975-76” Document
6
8-
National Security Archive “The
Freedom of Information Act”
9-
National Security Archive: “East Timor Revisited: Ford, Kissinger
and the Indonesian Invasion, 1975-76” Document
4
10-
National Security Archive: “East Timor Revisited: Ford, Kissinger
and the Indonesian Invasion, 1975-76” Document
6
11-
United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/3236
(XXIX) 22 November 1974
12-
UNRWA: “Refugees:
Who is a Palestine Refugee?”
13-
ReliefWeb: “East
Timorese leader in a bid to speed up refugee returns”
